FACTS

:Ruperta C. Palaganas (Ruperta), a Filipino who became a naturalized United States (U.S.) citizen,
died single and childless. In the last will and testament she executed in California, she
designated her brother, Sergio C. Palaganas (Sergio), as the executor of her will for she had left
properties in the Philippines and in the U.S .Respondent Ernesto C. Palaganas (Ernesto), another brother
of Ruperta, filed w i t h t h e a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e p r o b a t e o f R u p e r t a s w i l l a n d f o r h i s
a p p o i n t m e n t a s special administrator of her estate. However, petitioners Manuel Miguel Palaganas
(Manuel) and Benjamin Gregorio Palaganas (Benjamin), nephews of Ruperta,
opposed the petition on the ground that Rupertas will should not be probated in the Philippines but in the
U.S. where she executed it. T h e R T C i s s u e d a n o r d e r : ( a ) a d m i t t i n g t o p r o b a t e
R u p e r t a s l a s t w i l l ; ( b ) appointing respondent Ernesto as special administrator at the request of
Sergio, the U.S.-based executor designated in the will; and (c) issuing the Letters of Special
Administration to Ernesto. Manuel and Benjamin appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that an
unprobated will executed by an American citizen in the U.S. cannot be probated for the first time in the
Philippines. The CA affirmed order of the RTC, holding that the RTC properly allowed the probate of the
will. The
CA
pointed
out
that
Section
2,
Rule
76
of the
Rules
of
Court
does not require prior probate and allowance of the will in the country
o f i t s execution, before it can be probated in the Philippines. The present case is different f r o m
r e p r o b a t e , w h i c h r e f e r s t o a w i l l a l r e a d y p r o b a t e d a n d a l l o w e d a b r o a d . Reprobate
is governed by different rules or procedures.
ISSUE:
W hether or not a will executed by a foreigner abroad may be probated in the
Philippines although it has not been previously probated and allowed in the country where it was
executed.
HELD
:Section 1, Rule 73 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if the decedent is an
inhabitant of a foreign country, the RTC of the province where he has an estate may take
cognizance of the settlement of such estate. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 76 further state that the
executor, devisee, or legatee named in the will, or any other person interested in the estate, may,
at any time after the death of the testator, petition the court having jurisdiction to have the will allowed,
whether the same be in his possession or not, or is lost or destroyed. Our rules require merely that
the petition for the allowance of a will must show, so far as known to the petitioner: (a) the
jurisdictional facts;
(b) the
names,
ages, and residences
of the heirs,
l e g a t e e s , a n d d e v i s e e s o f t h e t e s t a t o r o r decedent; (c) the probable value and
character of the property of the estate; (d) the name of the person for whom letters are prayed;
and (e) if the will has not been delivered to the court, the name of the person having
custody of it. Jurisdictional f a c t s r e f e r t o t h e f a c t o f d e a t h o f t h e d e c e d e n t , h i s
r e s i d e n c e a t t h e t i m e o f h i s death in the province where the probate court is sitting, or if he is an
inhabitant of a foreign country, the estate he left in such province. The rules do not require proof that the
foreign will has already been allowed and probated in the country of its execution. In insisting
that Rupertas will should have been first probated and allowed by the court of California, petitioners
Manuel and Benjamin obviously have in mind the procedure for the reprobate of will before
admitting
it
here. But,
reprobate
or
re-a u t h e n t i c a t i o n o f a
w i l l a l r e a d y p r o b a t e d a n d a l l o w e d i n a f o r e i g n c o u n t r y i s different from
that probate where the will is presented for the first time before a competent
court. Reprobate is specifically governed by Rule 77 of the Rules of C o u r t . C o n t r a r y
t o p e t i t i o n e r s s t a n c e , s i n c e t h i s l a t t e r r u l e a p p l i e s o n l y t o reprobate of a
will, it cannot be made to apply to the present case. In reprobate, the local court
acknowledges as binding the findings of the foreign probate court provided its jurisdiction over
the matter can be established. Besides, petitioners stand is fraught with impractically. If the instituted
heirs d o n o t h a v e t h e m e a n s t o g o a b r o a d f o r t h e p r o b a t e o f t h e w i l l , i t i s a s
g o o d a s depriving them outright of their inheritance, since our law requires that no will shall pass either
real or personal property unless the will has been proved and allowed bythe proper court.

VDA DE PEREZ V. TOLETE

FACTS:
Dr. Jose Cunanan and his wife, Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan, who became American citizens
and residents of New York, each executed a will also in New York, containing provisions on presumption
of survivorship (in the event that it is not known which one of the spouses died first, the husband shall be
presumed to have predeceased his wife). Later, the entire family perished in a fire that gutted their home.
Thus, Rafael, who was named trustee in Joses will, filed for separate probate proceedings of the wills.
Later, Evelyns mother, Salud Perez, filed a petition for reprobate in Bulacan. Rafael opposed, arguing
that Salud was not an heir according to New York law. He contended that since the wills were executed in
New York, New York law should govern. He further argued that, by New York law, he and his brothers and
sisters were Joses heirs and as such entitled to notice of the reprobate proceedings, which Salud failed
to
give.
For her part, Salud said she was the sole heir of her daughter, Evelyn, and that the two wills were in
accordance with New York law. But before she could present evidence to prove the law of New York, the
reprobate court already issued an order, disallowing the wills.

ISSUE: Whether or not the reprobate of the wills should be allowed

HELD:
Extrinsic Validity of Wills of Non-Resident Aliens
The respective wills of the Cunanan spouses, who were American citizens, will only be effective in this
country upon compliance with the following provision of the Civil Code of the Philippines:
Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made with the formalities
prescribed bythe law of the place in which he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his
country, or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes.
Thus, proof that both wills conform with the formalities prescribed by New York laws or by Philippine laws
is imperative.
Evidence for Reprobate of Wills Probated outside the Philippines
The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills which have been probated outside of the
Philippines are as follows: (1) the due execution of the will in accordance with the foreign laws; (2) the
testator has his domicile in theforeign country and not in the Philippines; (3) the will has been admitted to
probate in such country; (4) the fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court, and (5) the laws of
a foreign country on procedure and allowance of wills (III Moran Commentaries on the Rules of Court,
1970 ed., pp. 419-429; Suntay v. Suntay, 95 Phil. 500 [1954]; Fluemer v. Hix, 54 Phil. 610 [1930]). Except
for the first and last requirements, the petitioner submitted all the needed evidence.
The necessity of presenting evidence on the foreign laws upon which the probate in the foreign country is
based is impelled by the fact that our courts cannot take judicial notice of them.
On Lack of Notice to Joses Heirs
This petition cannot be completely resolved without touching on a very glaring fact - petitioner has always

considered herself the sole heir of Dr. Evelyn Perez Cunanan and because she does not consider herself
an heir of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, she noticeably failed to notify his heirs of the filing of the proceedings.
Thus, even in the instant petition, she only impleaded respondent Judge, forgetting that a judge whose
order is being assailed is merely a nominal or formal party (Calderon v. Solicitor General, 215 SCRA 876
[1992]).
The rule that the court having jurisdiction over the reprobate of a will shall "cause notice thereof to be
given as in case of an original will presented for allowance" (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 27, Section 2)
means that with regard to notices, the will probated abroad should be treated as if it were an "original will"
or a will that is presented for probate for the first time. Accordingly, compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of
Rule 76, which require publication and notice by mail or personally to the "known heirs, legatees, and
devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines" and to the executor, if he is not the petitioner, are
required.
The brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan, contrary to petitioner's claim, are entitled to notices of
the time and place for proving the wills. Under Section 4 of Rule 76 of the Revised Rules of Court, the
"court shall also cause copies of the notice of the time and place fixed for proving the will to be addressed
to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator, . . . "
WHEREFORE, the questioned Order is SET ASIDE. Respondent Judge shall allow petitioner reasonable
time within which to submit evidence needed for the joint probate of the wills of the Cunanan spouses and
see to it that the brothers and sisters of Dr. Jose F. Cunanan are given all notices and copies of all
pleadings pertinent to the probate proceedings.
SO ORDERED.

ANCHETA V. GUERSEY-DALAYGON (Succession)

Binding Effect of Judgments
490 SCRA 140
June 8, 2006
Facts: Spouses Audrey ONeill (Audrey) and W. Richard Guersey (Richard) were American citizens who
have resided in the Philippines for 30 years. They have an adopted daughter, Kyle Guersey Hill (Kyle).
Audrey died in 1979. She left a will wherein she bequeathed her entire estate to Richard consisting of
Audreys conjugal share in real estate improvements at Forbes Park, current account with cash balance
and shares of stock in A/G Interiors. Two years after her death, Richard married Candelaria GuerseyDalaygon. Four years thereafter, Richard died and left a will wherein he bequeathed his entire estate to
respondent, except for his shares in A/G, which he left to his adopted daughter.
Petitioner, as ancillary administrator in the court where Audreys will was admitted to probate, filed a
motion to declare Richard and Kyle as heirs of Audrey and a project of partition of Audreys estate. The
motion and project of partition were granted. Meanwhile, the ancillary administrator with regards to
Richards will also filed a project of partition, leaving 2/5 of Richards undivided interest in the Forbes
property was allocated to respondent Candelaria, while 3/5 thereof was allocated to their three children.
Respondent opposed on the ground that under the law of the State of Maryland, where Richard was a
native of, a legacy passes to the legatee the entire interest of the testator in the property subject to the
legacy.
Issue: Whether or not the decree of distribution may still be annulled under the circumstances.
Held: A decree of distribution of the estate of a deceased person vests the title to the land of the estate in
the distributees, which, if erroneous may be corrected by a timely appeal. Once it becomes final, its

binding effect is like any other judgment in rem.

However, in exceptional cases, a final decree of distribution of the estate may be set aside for lack of
jurisdiction or fraud. Further, in Ramon vs. Ortuzar, the Court ruled that a party interested in a probate
proceeding may have a final liquidation set aside when he is left out by reason of circumstances beyond
his control or through mistake or inadvertence not imputable to negligence.
Petitioners failure to proficiently manage the distribution of Audreys estate according to the terms of her
will and as dictated by the applicable law amounted to extrinsic fraud. Hence the CA Decision annulling
the RTC Orders dated February 12, 1988 and April 7, 1988, must be upheld.

Tayag v. Benguet Consolidated Inc.

Summary: mere excerpt to show the relevance of ancillary administration
Facts:
-Decedent: Idonah Slade Perkins - left 2 stock certificates covering 33,002
shares in BCMI
-BCMI Stock certificates: in possession of Country Trust Company of NY
(domiciliary administrator of Idonah's estate)
-ancillary administration proceedings instituted in Manila: appointed finally
Renato Tayag
-BCMI was compelled by the court to deliver to Tayag the Certificates. BCMI
did not comply
WON Tayag (and not Country Trust Company of NY) is entitled to
administration of the BCMI Certificate of Stocks? TAYAG as ancillary
administrator
1 No contest that ancillary administrator has control and possession of all
assets of the decedent w/n the jurisdiction of the Philippines
1 An administrator appointed in one state or country has no power over
property in another state or country
1 Principal vs. Ancillary administration:
Principal administration: that which is granted in the jurisdiction of the
decedent's last domicile
Ancillary administration: any other administration
Why? A grant of administration does not ex proprio vigore (by its own force)
have any effect beyond the limits of the country in which it is granted.
When proper? When a person dies leaving property in a country other than
that of his last domicile
1 BCMI, as a domestic corporation, owes full allegiance and subject to the
unrestricted jurisdiction of lower courts.
1 The situs of the shares of stocks is here in RP [Wells Fargo Bank and
Union v. CIR]
A Trusts
-right of property, real or personal, held by one party for the benefit of another
-may be created by deed during the lifetime of the settler or by will
PRIL problem: When properties are located in places other than where the trustor is
domiciled and where the trust was made - does the effect of that trust extend
extraterritorially?

Validity
Essential propriety of the trust
Compliance with formalities

Choice-of-law provision: courts of the place where trust is being administered will
normally apply the chosen law (carry out intent of the trustor)
>if none: follow the law that will sustain the validity of the trust
Testamentary trusts :: contained in a will :: follow the law of the place to which
extrinsic validity of the will depend (usu. Lex loci contractus)
But since it involves properties: lex situs
In re: Testate Estate of the deceased JOSE B. SUNTAY. SILVINO SUNTAY, petitioner-appellant,
vs.In
re:
Intestate
Estate
of
the
deceased
JOSE
B.
SUNTAY,
FEDERICO C. SUNTAY, administrator-appellee./1954, J. Padilla.
Doctrine: There are matters to be established in order to prove a will proved outside the Philippines, among these
are: (a) that the foreign court was, under the laws of said foreign country, a probate court with jurisdiction over the
proceedings; (b) the law of the foreign country on procedure in the probate or allowance of wills; (c) the legal
requirements for the execution of a valid will in such foreign country. Note: In the absence of proof of the foreign law,
it is presumed that it is the same as that in the Philippines.
Facts:
- Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino resident citizen, died in city of Amoy, Fookien province, Republic of China. He entered into
a contract of marriage twice in his lifetime.
- He had children, including the administrator-appellee Federico, with the late Manuela T. Cruz. He also had a son
herein petitioner-appellant Silvino with Maria Natividad Lim Billian who survived him.
- Intestate proceedings were instituted in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan (special proceedings No. 4892). After
the death of Apolonio Suntay, Federico C. Suntay was appointed administrator of the estate.
- On 15 October 1934 the surviving widow filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan for the probate of a
last will and testament claimed to have been executed and signed in the Philippines in November 1929 by the late
Jose B. Suntay. But it was denied because of the loss of said will after the filing of the petition and before the hearing
thereof and of the insufficiency of the evidence to establish the loss of the said will. Appeal was taken and SC
remanded the case to CFI Bulacan upon the finding that the evidence is sufficient to prove the loss of the will.
- Nonetheless, the probate court denied motion for continuance of the hearing by the surviving widow and dismissed
the petition. In the meantime Pacific War supervened.
- After liberation, Silvino Suntay filed a petition in the intestate proceedings praying for the probate of the will executed
in the Philippines in November 1929 (Exhibit B) or of the will executed in Amoy, Fookien, China, on 4 January 1931
(Exhibit N). He claimed that he had found among the files, records and documents of his late father a will and
testament in Chinese characters executed and signed by the deceased on 4 January 1931 and that the same was
filed, recorded and probated in the Amoy district court, Province of Fookien, China.
- The witnesses who testified to the provisions of the lost will are Go Toh, an attesting witness, Anastacio Teodoro and
Ana Suntay. Manuel Lopez, who was an attesting witness to the lost will, was dead at the time of the hearing of this
alternative petition.
- CFI disallowed the alleged last will and testament executed in November 1929 and the alleged last will and
testament executed in Amoy, China.
Issue (TOPICAL): WON the last will and testament executed in Amoy, China should be allowed and recorded by the
CFI? [NO, because certain facts as to the due execution of the China will were not established.]
Ratio: As to the will claimed to have been executed on 4 January 1931 in Amoy, China, the law on the point in Rule
78. Section 1 of the rule provides:
Wills proved and allowed in a foreign country, according to the laws of such country, may be allowed, filed,
and recorded by the proper Court of First Instance in the Philippines.
Section 2 provides:
When a copy of such will and the allowance thereof, duly authenticated, is filed with a petition for allowance
in the Philippines, by the executor or other person interested, in the court having jurisdiction, such court shall

fix a time and place for the hearing, and cause notice thereof to be given as in case of an original will
presented for allowance.
Section 3 provides:
If it appears at the hearing that the will should be allowed in the Philippines, the court shall so allow it, and a
certificate of its allowance, signed by the Judge, and attested by the seal of the courts, to which shall be
attached a copy of the will, shall be filed and recorded by the clerk, and the will shall have the same effect as
if originally proved and allowed in such court.
1. The fact that the municipal district court of Amoy, China, is a probate court must be proved. The law of China on
procedure in the probate or allowance of wills must also be proved. The legal requirements for the execution of a
valid will in China in 1931 should also be established by competent evidence. There is no proof on these points.
2. The unverified answers to the questions propounded by counsel for the appellant to the Consul General of the
Republic of China set forth in Exhibits R-1 and R-2, objected to by counsel for the appellee, are inadmissible,
because apart from the fact that the office of Consul General does not qualify and make the person who holds it an
expert on the Chinese law on procedure in probate matters, if the same be admitted, the adverse party would be
deprived of his right to confront and cross-examine the witness. Consuls are appointed to attend to trade matters.
3. Moreover, it appears that all the proceedings had in the municipal district court of Amoy were for the purpose of
taking the testimony of two attesting witnesses to the will and that the order of the municipal district court of Amoy
does not purport to probate the will. In the absence of proof that the municipal district court of Amoy is a probate court
and on the Chinese law of procedure in probate matters, it may be presumed that the proceedings in the matter of
probating or allowing a will in the Chinese courts are the same as those provided for in our laws on the subject . It is a
proceedings in rem and for the validity of such proceedings personal notice or by publication or both to all interested
parties must be made. The interested parties in the case were known to reside in the Philippines. The evidence
shows that no such notice was received by the interested parties residing in the.
4. The proceedings had in the municipal district court of Amoy, China, may be likened to a deposition or to a
perpetuation of testimony, and even if it were so it does not measure or come up to the standard of such proceedings
in the Philippines for lack of notice to all interested parties and the proceedings were held at the back of such
interested parties.
Decision: The order of the municipal district court of Amoy, China does not purport to probate or allow the will which
was the subject of the proceedings. In view thereof, the will and the alleged probate thereof cannot be said to have
been done in accordance with the accepted basic and fundamental concepts and principles followed in the probate
and allowance of wills. Consequently, the authenticated transcript of proceedings held in the municipal district court of
Amoy, China, cannot be deemed and accepted as proceedings leading to the probate or allowance of a will and,
therefore, the will referred to therein cannot be allowed, filed and recorded by a competent court of this country.
Digested by: Carla Badi